JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.: - Petitioners, who are the residents of different Sectors of Chandigarh, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the actions of respondents No.1 to 3 thereby permitting the successful bidders to run liquor vends in prefabricated temporary structures and tavern along with liquor vends on the Government land allotted to them on the roadside near the roundabouts and red lights in different Sectors in the city of Chandigarh. Present petition was entertained under the heading of Public Interest Litigation. 2. Petitioners’ case, inter alia, is that petitioners have no direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the matter and the petition is being filed for the benefit of general public; Excise Department has issued liquor vend licences to the successful bidders to run liquor vend along with the tavern in a pre-fabricated temporary structures; respondent No.2-department has granted lease/licence to the successful bidders along the roadside near the roundabouts and red lights in various Sectors in the city of Chandigarh wherein liquor vends along with tavern are being run causing traffic jam, drunken brawl and wrongful parking on the roadsides; allotment of Government land to establish and run the liquor vends and tavern on the pre-fabricated structures is in total violation of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rules made thereunder. Certain photographs of the liquor vends are also filed with the petition to demonstrate location of the liquor vends and tavern close to the red lights, haphazard parking of the vehicles on the roadside and the people urinating in the open. 3. In response to the notice issued vide order dated 7.4.2012, reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 stating therein that allotments for licences in the pre-fabricated temporary structures category both for L-2 and L-14A has fetched a total amount of Rs.60 crores approximately, therefore, it is in the interest of the revenue to permit the liquor vends and tavern on the pre-fabricated temporary structures on the Government land; Engineering Department has rightly permitted to run the liquor vends and taverns on the Government land for the limited period on payment of rent. 4. 4. This Court vide order dated 1.5.2012 has directed the respondents to file specific affidavit disclosing the nature of the land in respect of every area wherein land was given to the successful bidders to establish and run liquor vends in the pre-fabricated structures and tavern. Pursuant to the order dated 1.5.2012, affidavit of Anil Gupta, Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle-I, Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh, was placed on record specifically mentioning therein that liquor vends and tavern mentioned from Sr. No.1 to 29 in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit are over the land reserved for future expansion of the road. While land of liquor vends and tavern mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit was provided by the Engineering Department, which is beyond the slow carriage ways being built by the Engineering Department. 5. CM No.6330 of 2012 was filed by some of the successful bidders running the liquor vends and tavern in the pre-fabricated structures over the Government land seeking impleadment. We have permitted Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the successful bidders to address the Court as intervener. 6. We have heard Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Mohinder Singh Nain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel, for respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for some of the successful bidders running the liquor vends and tavern along the roadside on the Government land, at length and have perused the record. 7. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, while referring to the Excise Policy, which is available on record as Annexure P-4, has vehemently argued that the successful bidder, to run the liquor vend and tavern in the pre-fabricated temporary structure, has to arrange the land himself and department will not be responsible for providing land to successful allottees of pre-fabricated temporary structure category, therefore, allotment of the Government land for pre-fabricated temporary structures by the Engineering Department of U.T., Chandigarh, is neither the part of Excise Policy nor in furtherance of Excise Policy. Mr. Mittal has further argued that land, which is reserved for the expansion of the metal road, shall be part of the road/street, therefore, cannot be permitted to be used by the department for liquor vends. Mr. Mr. Mittal has further argued that land, which is reserved for the expansion of the metal road, shall be part of the road/street, therefore, cannot be permitted to be used by the department for liquor vends. Mr. Mittal has further argued that U.T. Administration has not framed any policy, Rules or bylaws making provision for the grant of land either on lease or on licence to run liquor vends by the successful bidders in the specified areas. Mr. Mittal has further argued that there are so many schemes for leasing out Government built up shops/booths, platforms some of them are “Leasing out of Government Built up Shops/Booths on monthly rent basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 2000” and “Leasing of Built up Platforms to the Second hand book sellers of Section 15, Chandigarh Scheme, 2007”. However, for the liquor vends there is no such scheme, Rules or bylaws, therefore, the Engineering Department is not competent to allot the land to the successful bidders either on lease or on licence. According to Mr. Mittal, taverns are not having sewerage connections, therefore, cannot have toilets, washrooms, therefore, are being run in total violation of Excise Policy. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh, and Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, have vehemently argued that pre-fabricated liquor vends and tavern were permitted for the first time way back in the year 2005-06 and as such are continuing, therefore, present petition is barred by principle of delay and laches. It has further been argued on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 that present petition is not maintainable in view of Rule 2 of the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 for want of proper affidavit of the petitioners disclosing their credentials and interest in the matter. It has further been argued by Mr. Sanjay Kaushal that this Court should not interfere in the Excise Policy whereby liquor vends and tavern are permitted in pre-fabricated structures on the land made available by the Engineering Department. 9. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for some of the successful bidders, while referring to the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nashirwar etc. Sanjay Kaushal that this Court should not interfere in the Excise Policy whereby liquor vends and tavern are permitted in pre-fabricated structures on the land made available by the Engineering Department. 9. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for some of the successful bidders, while referring to the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nashirwar etc. vs. State of M.P. and others, 1975(1) SCC 29 , has argued that since as per the Excise Policy, respondents have granted the licences to run liquor vends and tavern in different Sectors of Chandigarh, therefore, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not set aside the Excise Policy by directing the removal of pre-fabricated structures from the different locations. Mr. Patwalia has further argued that even if it is treated that allotment of the Government land to run liquor vends and tavern is not part of the Excise Policy, however, same is in furtherance of Excise Policy of U.T. Chandigarh. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we would like to clarify herein that in the present petition Excise Policy is not under challenge nor we intend to enter into the question of legality of the Excise Policy. Since, we are not examining legality of the Excise Policy, therefore, judgment cited by Mr. Patwalia in the matter of Nashirwar (supra) has no application in the present matter. In that case the sole question before the Court was, ‘whether allotment of liquor vend by negotiation, after conclusion of auction would be permissible’. In the instant case no question of such a nature arises. In our firm opinion, U.T. Administration has absolute jurisdiction to grant licences to run liquor vends and tavern in the pre-fabricated structures as per Excise Policy 2012-13. 11. In the present petition following questions arise: - (1) As to whether lease or licence over the Government land, which is reserved for the expansion of the road or slow carriage ways, can be granted to the licenceholders to establish/run the liquor vends and tavern thereon? (2) As to whether liquor vends and tavern on the roadside would cause traffic hazard and nuisance for the general public? 12. To appreciate the controversy involved, we would like to reproduce important terms and conditions of the Excise Policy 2012-13 (P-4). 13. (2) As to whether liquor vends and tavern on the roadside would cause traffic hazard and nuisance for the general public? 12. To appreciate the controversy involved, we would like to reproduce important terms and conditions of the Excise Policy 2012-13 (P-4). 13. Condition No.1 under the heading of ‘Country Liquor’ of the Excise Policy for the period commencing from 1.5.2012 to 30.4.2013 read as under: - “1. No. of retailsale Country Liquor (L-14A) licences: - The maximum permissible number of retailsale Country Liquor (L-14A) licenses is fixed at 65. Retailsale country liquor (L- 14A) licences in pre-fabricated temporary structure category will be offered/granted at locations, which will be specified by the Department. However, the successful allottees in respect of prefabricated temporary structures category will have to execute rent deed with or obtain No Objection Certificate from land owning agency/owner, which will be the sole responsibility of the successful allottee. The Department will not be responsible for providing land to successful allottees of pre-fabricated temporary structure category. However, the licences will be granted only to those successful tenderers/allottees, who have the spaces in their possession & control, where they can start the liquor vend.” 14. Condition No.1 under the heading of ‘Foreign Liquor and Beer’ of the Excise Policy for the period commencing from 1.5.2012 to 30.4.2013 read as under: - “1. No. of retailsale Foreign Liquor (L-2) licences: - The maximum permissible number of retailsale Foreign Liquor (L- 2) licenses is fixed at 152. Retailsale foreign liquor (L-2) licences in pre-fabricated temporary structure category will be offered/granted at locations, which will be specified by the Department. However, the successful allottees in respect of pre-fabricated temporary structures category will have to execute rent deed with or obtain No Objection Certificate from land owning agency/owner, which will be the sole responsibility of the successful allottee. The Department will not be responsible for providing land to successful allottees of pre-fabricated temporary structure category. However, the licences will be granted only to those successful tenderers/allottees, who have the spaces in their possession & control, where they can start the liquor vend.” 15. Condition No.(xi) under the heading of ‘General – Mode of Grant’ reads as under: - “(xi) The license will be allotted to the highest eligible tenderer (offering highest bid), quoting bid equal to or above the reserve price for a particular licence/vend. Condition No.(xi) under the heading of ‘General – Mode of Grant’ reads as under: - “(xi) The license will be allotted to the highest eligible tenderer (offering highest bid), quoting bid equal to or above the reserve price for a particular licence/vend. In case, more than one bid quoting the same highest price are received, the successful tenderer/bidder will be determined by a draw of lots amongst the tenderers quoting the same highest amount. In case, there is no bid or no eligible bid equal to or above the reserve price, the bids will be invited again. However, the licences will be granted only to those successful tenderers/allottees, who have the spaces in their possession & control, where they can start the liquor vend.” 16. Definition of ‘Tavern’ reads as under: - “14. Tavern: - Tavern to continue both with Country Liquor (L-14A) and IMFL (L-2) vends at licence fee of Rs. 66,000/- and Rs. 1.32 lacs respectively for a period of twelve months commencing from 1st May, 2012 to 30th April, 2013. The Tavern shall be located in separate premises from the vend by metes and bounds. Tavern attached to L-2 vend to have eight tables (minimum) with seating capacity of 40 persons, to have temperature control system within the premises, clean and modern toilets and cutlery and crockery of good standard. Tavern attached to country liquor vends located in the sectoral grid to have attached toilets, neat & clean premises and cutlery and crockery of good standard. In order to further improve the ambience and functioning of Tavern attached to L-2 vends the following conditions will be mandatory for grant of the license. i) To have provision for metered electric and water supply. ii) To have proper system of garbage collection and disposal. iii) To have a separate kitchen. iv) To have tiled flooring in kitchen, seating hall and toilets. v) To have family enclosures vi) To provide meal (Dal + 4 Chapatis for Rs.25/-) The Collector may refuse to grant a license for Tavern in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to UT, Chandigarh.” 17. iv) To have tiled flooring in kitchen, seating hall and toilets. v) To have family enclosures vi) To provide meal (Dal + 4 Chapatis for Rs.25/-) The Collector may refuse to grant a license for Tavern in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to UT, Chandigarh.” 17. Having perused the terms and conditions of the Excise Policy, as reproduced herein above, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that L-2 or L-14A licence in pre-fabricated temporary structure category were to be offered/granted at the locations specified by the department; however, the successful allottee in respect of pre-fabricated temporary structure category has to arrange the land himself; department was not to be responsible for providing land to successful allottee of pre-fabricates temporary structure category; licence was to be granted only to those successful tenderers/allottees, who have the spaces in their possession & control, where they can start the liquor vend. None of the terms and conditions of the Excise Policy provides that land shall be made available by the U.T. Administration or its Engineering Department on lease or licence to establish and run the liquor vend and tavern in a prefabricated temporary structure. Rather Policy is very much clear that licence-holder has to arrange land himself and licence shall be granted to those who have spaces in their possession. We fail to find out any provision in the Excise Policy which provides that pre-fabricated structures for liquor vends and tavern should only be in a Government land near the roundabouts and red lights rather it only specifies the Sector number and area. In the considered view of this Court, for the pre-fabricated structure licence-holder should have in his possession open space in the Sector or area of licence either as owner or lessee or licencee. 18. It is admitted case of the respondents that Engineering Department of the U.T. Administration has provided land which is reserved for the expansion of the metalled road and construction of slow carriage ways. 19. 18. It is admitted case of the respondents that Engineering Department of the U.T. Administration has provided land which is reserved for the expansion of the metalled road and construction of slow carriage ways. 19. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Municipal Board, Manglaur vs. Mahadeojit Maharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1147 has placed reliance on the observations made in the case of Harvey vs. Truro Rural District Council (1903) 2 Ch 638, which reads as under: - “In the case of an ordinary highway running between fences, although it may be of a varying and unequal width, the right of passage or way prima facie, and unless there be evidence to the contrary, extends to the whole space between the fences, and the public are entitled to the entire of it as the highway, and are not confined to the part which may be metalled or kept in order for the more convenient use of carriages and foot- passengers.” 20. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Municipal Board (supra) has also approved the observations made in the case of Anukul Chandra vs. Dacca Dt. Board, AIR 1928 Cal 485, which reads as under: - “The expression “road” or “highway” has been considered in many cases in England and it seems that the interpretation put there is not confined to the portion actually used by the public but it extends also the side lands.” The learned Judge applied the English view to the construction of the words “public street or road” in Article 146- A of the Limitation Act, and stated : “I am of opinion that “road” in that article includes the portion which is used as road as also the lands kept on two sides as parts of the road for the purposes of the road.” 21. In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court (supra), we are satisfied that land which has been reserved for the expansion of the roads and slow carriage ways must be regarded as a part of the road and cannot be utilized for any other purpose whatsoever and grant of the lease on such land to open the liquor vends and tavern cannot be considered to be legal. 22. Section 3 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 reads as under: - “3. 22. Section 3 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 reads as under: - “3. Power of Central Government in respect of transfer of land and building in Chandigarh. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Government may sell, lease or otherwise transfer, whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose. (2) The consideration money for any transfer under subsection (1) shall be paid to the Central Government in such manner and in such instalments and at such rate of interest as may be prescribed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, until the entire consideration money together with interest or any other amount, if any, due to the Central Government on account of the transfer of any site or building, or both, under sub-section (1) is paid, such site or building, or both, as the case may be, shall continue to belong to the Central Government.” 23. Having perused Section 3 we are satisfied that Government can sell, lease or transfer either by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as provided by any Rules made under this Act. The land admittedly belongs to the U.T. Administration. It is under the management and control of Engineering Department. Even if it is presumed that same is not part of the road or slow carriage way, there is no Rule or Scheme framed under the Act permitting allotment of the Government land for the commercial use. U.T. Administration has not floated any scheme under the Act reserving any particular market for the liquor vends. Therefore, allotment of the land to the successful bidders of liquor vends by private negotiation is in violation of Section 3 of the Act and as well in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Question No.1 stands answered accordingly. 24. On being asked, learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly stated that almost 20,000-30,000 vehicles are being registered every year in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, therefore, vehicular traffic on the roads of Chandigarh has increased manifold after 2005-06. Question No.1 stands answered accordingly. 24. On being asked, learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly stated that almost 20,000-30,000 vehicles are being registered every year in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, therefore, vehicular traffic on the roads of Chandigarh has increased manifold after 2005-06. There is no denial that liquor vends and tavern are situated on the road berms. The distance is three or four meters. Most of them are near the roundabouts and red lights, as is evident from few photographs filed along with the petition. Photographs, which are not being disputed by the respondents, would also go to suggest that vehicles are parked either on the metalled road or in the open space near the liquor vend and tavern. As per the Excise Policy, permission to run liquor vend on a particular location can be refused by the Administration for the public morality, public health and public order. Congestion of traffic is a valid ground to refuse permission. Since traffic has increased manifold by the passing of every year, therefore, keeping in mind public safety, liquor vends in the pre-fabricated temporary structures over the Government land (which is reserved for the expansion of road and slow carriage ways) near the roundabouts and traffic lights should not be allowed. 25. As per condition No.14 of the Excise Policy, tavern must have toilets. Admittedly, there is no sewer line connecting to these liquor vends and tavern. In one of the photographs, consumer is seen urinating in the open space near the liquor vend and tavern. Therefore, in the absence of toilet in the tavern, same cannot be allowed to run and permission should have been refused on the ground of public morality, public health and public order. Question No.2 stands answered accordingly. 26. There is no doubt that Rules framed by this Court for entertaining the writ petition under the heading of Public Interest Litigation, require the petitioners to file a specific affidavit showing their credentials and also stating that petitioners are public spirited persons and they have no personal interest in the matter. It has not been suggested that petitioners have ever been licence-holders for the liquor vends or have ever applied for liquor licence. Moreover, in the writ petition specific stand is that present petition is being filed in the public interest and petitioners are the public spirited persons. It has not been suggested that petitioners have ever been licence-holders for the liquor vends or have ever applied for liquor licence. Moreover, in the writ petition specific stand is that present petition is being filed in the public interest and petitioners are the public spirited persons. Moreover, this Court has taken cognizance of the matter keeping in view the larger public interest involved. Therefore, since this Court has taken cognizance of the matter, same cannot be thrown out on the hypertechnical ground. In view of the observations made hereinbefore, action of the U.T. Administration is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, laches and delay, if any, are liable to be condoned and ignored. 27. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. All the liquor vends and tavern established and being run on the roadside on the Government land are directed to shift their vends and tavern to the alternate open space within the area of licence in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from today failing which all such vends shall close down by June 28, 2012. Let compliance of this order be placed before this Court on or before July 2, 2012. ---------0.B.S.0------------